Duke Geoffrey, Henry II and the Angevin empire

5 DUKE GEOFFREY, HENRY II AND THE ANGEVIN EMPIRE The previous chapter demonstrated Duke Geoffrey's able performance as Henry II's lieutenant in Brittany from 1175 to 1181, and his competent government of the duchy from 1181 to 1186. This aspect of Geoffrey's career has been overlooked by contemporary chroniclers and modern historians alike, their only interest in Geoffrey arising from his role in Angevin politics and hence his activities outside Brittany. Failure to have regard to Geoffrey's reign as duke of Brittany, or to attempt to interpret the events of c. 1173 to 1186 from Geoffrey's own perspective, inevitably leads to misconceptions. In assessing Geoffrey's career, modern writers have been over- in¯uenced by two contemporary authors, Roger of Howden and Gerald of Wales, accepting certain statements made by them at face- value as the principal evidence for Geoffrey's character and motiva- tions. 1 This acceptance has been possible because no study to date has focused on Geoffrey himself. Works on the Angevin empire are either general, in which case Geoffrey and Brittany are relegated to a minor role, included for the sake of comprehensiveness, or about particular members of the Angevin royal family, Henry II, Richard or John, in which case Geoffrey's role is as a supporting character, mentioned only when his conduct impinges on the career of the central character. To be fair to historians, this is the context in which Geoffrey appears in the available contemporary literary sources. This is due to the fact that there are no Breton chronicles for the second half of the twelfth century, and chroniclers writing outside Brittany were not interested in recording the duchy's internal politics. The opinions expressed by 1 RH, ii, pp. 276±7; Gesta, i, pp. 297±8; Gerald of Wales, `Topographia Hibernica', distinctio III, cap. LII (J. F. Dimock (ed.), Giraldi Cambrensis, Topographia Hibernica et Expugnatio Hibernica. Rolls Series. London, 1867, pp. 199±201). This passage was reused by Gerald of Wales in `De principis instructione', distinctio ii, cap. xi (G. F. Werner (ed.), Giraldi Cambrensis Opera, VIII, De principis instructione liber, Rolls Series, London, 1891, pp. 177±9). 123 Roger of Howden and Gerald of Wales are so credible because they harmonize with other literary sources, which only mention Geoffrey in the context of Angevin family politics. Rebellions, with their battles, negotiations and treaties, were the sorts of matters recorded by contemporary chroniclers. The greater part of Geoffrey's political career, which was spent furthering Henry II's interests, and his own, in Brittany, is largely unrecorded. The evidence for Geoffrey's loyalty to Henry II can only be deduced from his pursuit of military campaigns in Brittany on Henry II's orders and his attestations of Henry II's charters. It is necessary, then, to review the sources which have had such a misleading in¯uence. Roger of Howden's chronicles are one of the principal literary sources for Geoffrey's career, and the majority of Howden's references to Geoffrey's activities are quite neutral. Howden could even be positive about Geoffrey, as for instance in the account of his journey with Richard to attend Henry II's Easter court at Win- chester in 1176. Howden records approvingly that Richard and Geof- frey declined to travel on Good Friday, and that on their arrival at Winchester they were met by Henry II and his court with great rejoicing. 2 What has so damned Geoffrey in the eyes of historians is Howden's use of the epithets `®lius iniquitatis' and `®lius perditionis'. 3 Howden applies these to Geoffrey only in the context of the 1183 rebellion, and nowhere else. In defying Henry II, Geoffrey was in fundamental breach of his obligations both as a son and as a vassal. In the course of the rebellion, men under Geoffrey's command ®red arrows at the king's person, attacked messengers under truce and plundered churches. Roger of Howden, as a royal courtier and a cleric, could not but condemn such conduct, but this is the only instance in which he expressly criticises Geoffrey. In his `Topographia Hibernica', Gerald of Wales composed a character-portrait of Geoffrey so detailed as to be the envy of anyone attempting the biography of a twelfth-century ®gure. Gerald tells us that Geoffrey was moderately attractive, although rather short in stature. He was exceptionally eloquent, intelligent and not easily deceived. 4 Else- where, Gerald reports a speech supposedly made by Geoffrey to an emissary sent by Henry II during the 1173 revolt, in which Geoffrey conjures with the word `hereditarius' to make the point that familial discord is an inherited Angevin family trait. 5 Although the story is no doubt apocryphal, it is signi®cant that Gerald chose Geoffrey, out of Henry II's four sons, to deliver such an eloquent speech. Gerald's 2 Gesta, p. 114±5. 3 RH, ii, pp. 276±7; Gesta, pp. 297 (`®lius proditionis') and 298. 4 See above, note 1. 5 Werner (ed.), `De principis instructione', p. 302. Brittany and the Angevins 124 emphasis on Geoffrey's eloquence is also consistent with the fact that Geoffrey was a keen patron of poetry, in both the langue d'oc and the langue d'oõ È l, and may have composed lyrics himself. 6 Gerald credits Geoffrey with both cunning and bravery in warfare. 7 Gerald also describes Geoffrey as `plene instructus' in military matters, but this is in comparison with John, who was still under instruction. Elsewhere, Gerald describes Geoffrey as a `miles egregius'. Geoffrey's dedication to perfecting his military skills was also noted by Roger of Howden. 8 On the negative side, Geoffrey used his eloquence to destructive ends. According to Gerald, it was by his eloquence and persuasive words that Geoffrey had roused Philip Augustus and his people into military action against Henry II and Richard in 1186. 9 Geoffrey was remarkably diligent in deceit and pretence. He was a bitter and ungrateful son, overly in¯uenced by the Young King, although else- where Gerald alleged Geoffrey himself was responsible for the rebellion of 1183. 10 It is tempting to treat the description of Geoffrey in `Topographia Hibernica' as a true portrait. The description, however, belongs in a particular literary context. It is not a portrait of Geoffrey alone, but a comparison between Geoffrey and John. Gerald has, therefore, focused on the similarities and differences between Henry II's two youngest sons, rather than upon them as individuals, and the similarities and differences have been exaggerated for effect. Furthermore, the chapter on Geoffrey and John forms part of a longer section describing all four of Henry II's sons. 11 The principal consideration which dictates against a literal reading of the passage, though, is the author's moral purpose, set out most clearly in his `De principis instructione'. This does not purport to be a work of history but a literary work on the theme of hubris, on the rise and fall of princes and speci®cally of Henry II. In this literary scheme, the king's 6 Duke Geoffrey's role as literary patron, inspiration and composer is comprehensively treated in the unpublished doctoral thesis of K.P. Carter, `Arthur I, duke of Brittany, in history and literature' (Florida State University, 1996), pp. 350±63. See also G. Gouiran, `Bertran de Born et le comte Geoffroy de Bretagne', in P.T. Ricketts (ed.), Actes du premier congre Á s international de l'association internationale d'e  tudes occitanes, London, 1987, 229±41. 7 In Gerald's classical metaphor, the qualities of Ulysses as much as those of Achilles (`Topographia Hibernica', p. 200; Werner (ed.), `De principis instructione', p. 178). 8 Werner (ed.), `De principis instructione', p. 172; RH, ii, p. 166; Gesta, p. 207. 9 `Topographia Hibernica', p. 200; Werner (ed.), `De principis instructione', pp. 176, 178. 10 Werner (ed.), `De principis instructione', p. 172. 11 `Topographia Hibernica', distinctio iii, cap. xlix-lii. In Werner (ed.), `De principis instructione', distinctio ii, cap. viii-xi, the same passages are reused, in a different order, but with a particular moral theme, which is expressed at the end of cap. xi. Duke Geoffrey, Henry II and the Angevin empire 125 sons do not act with free will, but are merely the agents of the `Divine judgment' to which Henry II is subject. 12 Gerald's literary purpose is to set up Geoffrey and John as noble princes, of exceptional promise and talent, then to expose the serious ¯aws in their characters. The moral, dramatically expressed in the conclusion to this passage, is that Henry II and his sons should have been a formidable team but, for his sins, the sons betrayed him and were cut down in their prime and Henry II was ruined. 13 Neither Roger of Howden nor Gerald of Wales, therefore, purports to give an account of Geoffrey's personal motivations. Both are interested only in Geoffrey's interactions with the principal subject of their works, Henry II. Consequently, in both sources Geoffrey appears as a strangely shallow personality, characterised by evil and apparently motiveless treachery. The account of Geoffrey's career set out in Chapter 4 demonstrates that this cannot be an accurate representation. It remains to examine in detail Geoffrey's career in Angevin family politics. Since the contemporary sources do not provide any analysis, how can Geoffrey's political purposes be determined? Possibly by reference to the nature of the `Angevin empire' and what Henry II anticipated should happen to it after his death. 14 If it was the intention of Henry II to pass on lordship of his dominions undivided to his eldest son, with the younger sons holding their lands of the eldest in some sort of dependent status, then Geoffrey had no realistic prospect of succeeding to this superior lordship. His brother Henry was bound to produce heirs. In the unlikely event that this did not occur, Richard was the next in line. Even if Henry II intended to divide his lands between his sons, the intention was that Henry, as eldest, would succeed to the patrimonial lands of England, Normandy and Anjou, Richard to Aquitaine and Geoffrey to Brittany. Geoffrey's portion was undeniably generous for a third son. Thus arguments about the nature of the Angevin empire do not seem relevant in Geoffrey's case. Until the death of the Young King Henry, at least, Geoffrey's position is quite clear. He was destined from infancy to be duke of Brittany. He was to hold Brittany of the Young King as duke of Normandy, an arrangement which was clearly intended to survive Henry II's death. Geoffrey rendered homage for Brittany to the 12 R. Bartlett, Gerald of Wales, 1146±1223, Oxford, 1982, pp. 69 ±76, 84. 13 Werner (ed.), `De principis instructione', p. 179. 14 See, for example, J. C. Holt, `The end of the Anglo-Norman realm', in Magna Carta and medieval government, London, 1985, pp. 39±42; J. Le Patourel, `Angevin Successions and the Angevin Empire', in M. Jones (ed.), Feudal empires, Norman and Plantagenet, London, 1984; and J. Gillingham, The Angevin Empire, London, 1984, ch. 3, `Dynastic Structure'. Brittany and the Angevins 126 Young King in 1169 and again in January 1183. 15 This was no more than the ful®lment of the tradition, nurtured by Henry II, of the subordination of the duke of Brittany to the duke of Normandy. Henry II cannot have intended that Brittany should be held independently of Normandy, that is, directly of the king of France, otherwise Geoffrey would have rendered homage to the king of France, instead of to the Young King, in 1169 and 1183. Geoffrey and his heirs were, therefore, destined to hold Brittany of Henry II's eldest surviving son and his heirs. Geoffrey can have had no realistic ambitions beyond this. Instead, I would argue that Geoffrey's politics can be explained simply in terms of the endowment of lands which had been promised to him in infancy: the county of Nantes, the duchy of Brittany and the honour of Richmond. The explanation for Geoffrey's piecemeal accession lies in the political divisions of Brittany, in the process by which Henry II himself acquired lordship of Brittany, and in the arrangements made for Geoffrey to succeed his father there. First, Henry II had acquired the county of Nantes. Then, in 1166, Conan IV had granted him all of Brittany as the maritagium of Constance. Conan's death in 1171 meant that the remainder of Constance's inheritance, the barony of Tre  guier and the honour of Richmond, fell into the king's hand. The possession and enjoyment of the constituent parts of this endowment was the consistent goal of Geoffrey's politics, at least until the last months of his life. Geoffrey had been allocated a generous endowment in theory, but Henry II proved reluctant to allow him to enjoy it in practice. This reluctance was the cause of Geoffrey's notorious rebellions against his father. They were not the motiveless acts of malice portrayed by the chroniclers. Much of this struggle took place outside Brittany itself because it was necessary for Geoffrey to campaign, both by war and by diplomacy, in theatres outside the borders of Brittany. His political ambitions were, however, no more grandiose than the acquisition of that which he had been promised and the consolidation of the duchy of Brittany in his own hands, for the bene®t of his heirs. Geoffrey's transition from being a landless younger son to one who enjoyed all the historic rights of the dukes of Brittany comprised three stages. First, in 1181, Henry II allowed Geoffrey to marry Constance and to assume lordship of most of Brittany, but retained the county of Nantes and the honour of Richmond in his own hand. Two years later, he yielded the honour of Richmond. 16 Finally, in 1185 or early 1186, 15 RT, ii, p. 10±12; RH, ii, p. 273; Gesta, p. 291; RD, ii, p. 18. 16 Pipe Roll 29 Henry II, p. 56; EYC, iv, pp. 111±2. Duke Geoffrey, Henry II and the Angevin empire 127 Henry II allowed Geoffrey to assume lordship of the county of Nantes. The process thus lasted for several years and was undoubtedly the cause of con¯ict between father and son. Since this has not previously been described in detail (although it was noted by Professor Le Patourel in his unpublished `Plantagenet rule in Brittany to 1205'), it requires further examination here. In 1181, Geoffrey assumed the title `dux Britannie et comes Riche- mundie'. For the ®rst time he was able to exercise lordship over some land in his own right. In fact, though, Geoffrey acquired lordship only of the counties of Rennes and Cornouaille, the Broe È rec and the barony of Le  on. The second part of his title had no substance at all since the king retained the honour of Richmond in his own hands. The honour of Richmond, although it was the patrimony of Conan IV, was excluded from the arrangements regarding the succession to Brittany made in 1166. After 1171, Henry II, as king of England, could retain Richmond in his own hand inde®nitely, subject only to any rights pertaining to Constance as heiress. 17 His grant to Geoffrey of the revenues of the manor of Cheshunt in 1177 must, however, indicate acknowledgement that Geoffrey had some claim to the honour. 18 Yet the Richmond lands remained in the king's hand until Michaelmas 1183, two years after Geoffrey's accession to the duchy of Brittany. The county of Nantes was also treated differently from the rest of Brittany, but for different reasons. Conan IV's claim to hereditary right in respect of Nantes was dubious, and Henry II could match it with his own claim to be the heir of his younger brother. Moreover, in 1158 Conan seems to have yielded unconditionally to Henry II those parts of the county he had brie¯y occupied. Consequently, Henry II was justi®ed in not treating the county as Constance's maritagium or inheritance, and hence in not granting it to Geoffrey in 1181. Geoffrey had two possible grounds for claiming the county of Nantes. The ®rst is that it might have become part of Constance's inheritance. The fate of Count Hoe È l after he left Nantes in 1156 is unknown, but he is not known to have had any legitimate issue, and was in the company of Duke Conan IV in England probably in 1164. 19 If Hoe È l had died without legitimate issue, Constance, his great-niece, would have been his heiress. In view of the irregular manner in which the comital/ducal dynasty had been ousted from Nantes by the Angevins, Hoe È l's heir had at least an arguable claim to be reinstated 17 See J.C. Holt, `Feudal society and the family in early medieval England: II, Notions of patrimony', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 5th series, 33 (1983), 193±220, reprinted in Colonial England, 1066±1215, London, 1997. 18 Pipe Roll 24 Henry II, p. 72. 19 BN ms fr. 22362, f. 7. Brittany and the Angevins 128 there. Even if this were not so, if in fact Henry II had designated Nantes as Geoffrey's portion from as early as 1158, prior to his betrothal to Constance, Geoffrey may have felt he had a moral right to possession of the county. When Henry II acquired the county of Nantes in 1158 he almost certainly intended it as provision for Geoffrey. The association of Geoffrey with Henry II's regime in Nantes, manifested by Geoffrey's appearance at the Christmas court held there in 1169, indicates that, even after the settlement of 1166, Geoffrey was expected to become count of Nantes. At some point, however, Henry II decided against giving Geoffrey both the county of Nantes and the rest of Brittany. This may have been in the aftermath of the 1173 revolt, since in one version of the treaty of Falaise, `Media' is expressly excluded from Geoffrey's portion. 20 The king was under no obligation to give the county of Nantes to Geoffrey and Constance on their marriage, and it seems to me that he did not. This decision may have surprised contemporaries. A charter concerning property of Fontevraud in the county of Nantes, dated 1181, prescribes that the seals of Robert bishop of Nantes, Geoffrey `dux Britannie' and Peter ®tzGuy, seneschal of Nantes, should be attached. 21 It appears that when the document was drafted, no later than August 1181, the nuns of Fontevraud thought that Geoffrey would be exercising ducal authority in the county of Nantes, although they were also aware that Henry II's seneschal still held of®ce there. In fact only the seals of the bishop and the seneschal were ever attached. 22 It appears that Henry II retained the county of Nantes in his own hands until 1185 or even early 1186. There are only two known charters of Geoffrey made at Nantes. One is dated 1186, the other is undated, but there is no evidence which requires it to have been made before 1186. Nor are there any acts of Duke Geoffrey concerning monasteries or property situated in the county of Nantes dated before 1186. No barons of the county of Nantes appear as witnesses to ducal charters except in the two charters made at Nantes just mentioned. If Geoffrey had acquired lordship of Nantes in 1181, it would be extraordinary if he did not visit the city, probably the largest and wealthiest of his domains, for ®ve years, or that monasteries 20 Actes de Henri II, no. cccclxix. 21 I am extremely grateful to Professor Sir James Holt for bringing to my attention the original manuscript, AD Maine-et-Loire, 158 H1, no. 3. 22 An eighteenth-century copy of this charter (BN ms latin 5840, p. 117) describes the two seals which were attached to the original manuscript as those of the bishop and the seneschal. The original charter (see note above) bears traces of the attachment of only two seals. Duke Geoffrey, Henry II and the Angevin empire 129 there should not have sought his patronage. In fact, the abbey of Buzay did seek Duke Geoffrey's patronage, but not until 1186. 23 Meanwhile, Peter ®tzGuy was seneschal of Nantes until at least 1183, and there was still a royal seneschal of Nantes in 1185. There is insuf®cient evidence to determine precisely when Henry II transferred lordship of Nantes to Geoffrey. The earliest possible date is 1185 since Henry II's seneschal was still at Nantes during that year. Geoffrey was high in his father's favour in the early months of 1185. Henry II had made him `custodian' of Normandy at the end of 1184 and in April 1185 the king came to Geoffrey's defence against Richard. Richard's aggression, probably directed against the county of Nantes, may have precipitated the transfer. Once it was in his possession, Geoffrey certainly wasted no time in fortifying the city of Nantes. One of the charters made at Nantes records that Geoffrey has damaged the vineyard of the priory of Saint-Cyr de Nantes by extending the forti®cations of the city. This extension of the walls, from the north- eastern corner of the Roman wall to the bank of the Erdre, corresponds with the course of the new city wall attributed to Dukes Guy de Thouars and Peter de Dreux in the early thirteenth century, but this charter indicates these works began under Geoffrey. 24 Henry II's hesitation in granting Geoffrey all of his endowment is understandable. The county of Nantes would have been respectable provision for a younger son, the duchy of Brittany and the honour of Richmond generous, but the combination of all three was perhaps excessive. Together, Nantes and the rest of Brittany had common borders with all of Henry II's continental dominions. This gave their possessor the potential to engage in military action in any of these territories, and for rebels from all of them to take refuge in Brittany. Their combined wealth, and the strategic position of Nantes, might have encouraged Geoffrey to defy his father and elder brothers, which is, in fact, what happened in 1186. The turning-point in Geoffrey's career was his marriage and accession to the duchy of Brittany in 1181. Until then, Geoffrey had been obliged to maintain his father's favour in order to secure possession of the lands which had been promised him. Although Geoffrey was betrothed to Constance when he was eight, until they were married and Geoffrey became duke of Brittany jure uxoris, the betrothal could be quashed by 23 See pp. 121±2. 24 Charters, no. Ge 28; A. Che  deville and N.-Y. Tonnerre, La Bretagne fe  odale, XIe-XIIIe sie Á cles, Rennes, 1987, pp. 423±4; N.-Y. Tonnerre, Naissance de la Bretagne: Ge  ographie historique et structures sociales de la Bretagne me  ridionale (Nantais et Vannetais) de la ®n du VIIIe a Á la ®n du XIIe sie Á cle, Angers, 1994, pp. 529, 540. Brittany and the Angevins 130 Henry II, especially after the death of the bride's father in 1171, and the proposed disposition of these lands rearranged. Constance could just as well have been given to Richard or John if Henry II had willed it. 25 Geoffrey was completely dependent on his father's favour towards him. In 1181, two fundamental changes occurred. Firstly, it became manifest that Henry II did not intend to give Geoffrey all of his lands at once, if at all. Secondly, with his possession of Brittany (albeit without Nantes), the balance of power moved in Geoffrey's favour. Having married the heiress, he could not easily be ousted from Brittany, even by Henry II himself. 26 For the ®rst time, Geoffrey possessed lands, and hence the source of ®nance and armed men. Instead of being entirely dependent upon his father's goodwill, Geoffrey now had the capacity to achieve his ends by military means. Secure in his possession of Brittany, after 1181, Geoffrey was at last able to defy his father instead of appeasing him. Geoffrey's military prowess was noted by contemporaries. He had gained military experience both in tournaments and in the ®eld, having led Breton knights on campaign in Brittany, under Henry II's orders, in 1175, 1177 and 1179. 27 Possession of most of Brittany gave Geoffrey suf®cient revenue and manpower to launch military campaigns outside the duchy for the ®rst time. 28 Geoffrey used his new-found power within months of his accession, in attacking Rennes when it was occupied by Henry II's men and sacking Becherel. His assistance was undoubtedly crucial to the Young King Henry's revolt of 1183. Perhaps, in the later months of 1181, Geoffrey began to assert that, since he was now married to Constance, he was entitled jure uxoris to the honour of Richmond and the county of Nantes. For both ®nancial and strategic reasons, Henry II was not ready to deliver them to him. This would explain the military con¯ict in the county of Rennes, between Geoffrey and Henry II's troops, described so obtusely by Robert de Torigni around 1182. 29 Geoffrey was reconciled with his father by June 1182 and possibly spent the rest of that year with him. 30 In this period, Geoffrey continued to press his case and Henry II did not show any signs of acceding to his demands. 25 J. Gillingham, Richard the Lionheart, 2nd edn, London, 1989, p. 51. 26 W. L. Warren, Henry II, London, 1973, p. 597. 27 RH, ii, p. 166; Gesta, p. 207; P. Meyer (ed.), L'histoire de Guillaume le Mare  chal, Paris, 1891±1901, i, lines 4841, 4919 and iii, p. 63. 28 Warren, Henry II, pp. 592, 596. 29 RT, ii, p. 115. 30 Chronicle of Geoffrey de Vigeois (RHF, xviii, p. 212); Actes de Henri II, no. dcxvii; RH, ii, p. 273; Gesta, p. 291; RT, ii, p. 117. Duke Geoffrey, Henry II and the Angevin empire 131 It was in these circumstances that, by January 1183, Geoffrey had transferred his loyalty to the Young King Henry. The actual events of the 1183 rebellion, so far as they concerned Geoffrey, are dif®cult to reconstruct, since the various chroniclers' accounts are dif®cult to collate into a coherent sequence of events. The account given by Professor John Gillingham in his recent (1999) biography of Richard I is extremely valuable for the course of the rebellion, and hence the following narrative focuses principally on Geoffrey's participation. A crisis was developing between the Young King Henry and Richard before Christmas 1182. Geoffrey may have started to conspire with the Young King as early as mid-1182, when both were in Aquitaine. In January 1183, Richard left Henry II's court having refused to render homage for Aquitaine to the Young King. The latter immediately despatched Geoffrey to Brittany to muster troops. 31 This was accom- plished so rapidly as to suggest that arrangements had been made in advance. According to Roger of Howden, Geoffrey's forces attacked Richard's territory, burning and taking booty. Richard reciprocated by doing the same to the lands of Geoffrey's men and executing any members of their households (`familia') who fell into his hands. 32 According to Gerald of Wales, Geoffrey led this force himself, attacking land on the borders of Normandy and Anjou. 33 These accounts are contradictory in that Richard's territory lying adjacent to Brittany was Poitou, not Normandy and Anjou. The latter location is more plausible, since without the county of Nantes, the Bretons under Geoffrey would not have had access to Poitou. They did, however, have ample access to the borders of Normandy and Anjou, from the frontier baronies of Fouge Á res, Vitre  , La Guerche and Cha à teaubriant. This action would have been effective as a diversion of Henry II and Richard's forces to enable the Young King to consolidate his position in Poitou. This certainly occurred, the Young King having hastened to Poitou in the meantime and seized several castles. 34 This con¯ict was brought to a halt by Henry II, who convened a meeting at Angers at which the brothers made peace. It was felt that this peace would have no lasting effect unless the rebellious Aquitanian barons were made party to it, and Henry II proposed a meeting to be held at Mirebeau for this purpose. He then despatched Geoffrey to Aquitaine to summon the barons to this meeting and arrange a truce in the meantime. 35 The rebellion now entered its second and more serious stage. Instead 31 RH, ii, p. 274; Gesta, p. 293. 32 Gesta, pp. 292±3. 33 Werner (ed.), `De principis instructione', p. 172. 34 Gesta, p. 292. 35 RH, ii, p. 274; Gesta, p. 295. Brittany and the Angevins 132 [...]... both the work on the forti®cations, and the patronage of frontier barons, may have occurred in 1186 in the context of Geoffrey's alliance with Philip Augustus against Henry II and Richard 138 Duke Geoffrey, Henry II and the Angevin empire and earl of Richmond What had been generous provision for an infant third son, though, must by now have seemed meagre for the second in line of succession to Henry II. .. with his father, then asked permission to return there solely for the purpose of persuading the rebels to make peace Instead, Geoffrey plundered the abbey of Saint-Martial and carried the booty back to his father Henry II having agreed to a further day's truce, the next day Geoffrey defected, declared the truce void and used the 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Geoffrey de Vigeois (RHF, xviii) p 213 For the topography... Brittany, under Henry II' s orders, during the 1170s The situation was unsatisfactory and, in the autumn of 1184, Henry II summoned the three brothers to England for a family conference That Geoffrey remained in his father's favour is indicated by the fact that Geoffrey and John were entrusted with a royal mission to the monks of Canterbury regarding the disputed election of the archbishop, which they undertook... Geoffrey died of the same cause as the Young King Henry, a fever, one might suspect that he had invented the cause of death for literary effect, if it were not corroborated by the other sources cited here 144 Duke Geoffrey, Henry II and the Angevin empire therefore, probably true While visiting Paris in August 1186, Geoffrey was taken seriously ill and died within a few days The account in the Gesta is... Aquitaine, the show of strength would have the effect of putting pressure on Henry II to yield to Geoffrey's own demands The Young King's death changed everything The division of Henry II' s lands between Henry, Richard and Geoffrey, settled since 1169, was redundant By Michaelmas 1183, Henry II was considering a new settlement Richard was to give up his direct lordship of Aquitaine and become the heir... veracity of either, but using both to condemn Geoffrey's treachery What, then, was the source of the tournament story? The account in the Gesta does not specify whether the source of the message delivered to Henry II was Philip Augustus himself, or a servant of Henry II' s on the continent who had received the information from Paris If the messenger was sent by Philip Augustus, it may be that the tournament.. .Duke Geoffrey, Henry II and the Angevin empire of carrying out his mission, Geoffrey joined forces with the rebellious barons Arriving at Limoges on 2 February 1183, Geoffrey made his headquarters at the citadel of Saint-Martial there, and was soon joined by the Young King.36 Again, the events suggests that this was arranged between the two brothers before Geoffrey left Angers They had assembled... administrator and military leader, and furthermore the only one of Henry II' s sons to have produced any legitimate children.68 Finally, the acquisition of Nantes improved the balance of power considerably in Geoffrey's favour Apart from the ®nancial bene®ts, possession of the county gave Geoffrey direct access by land to all of Henry II' s continental territories; Normandy and Maine (from the county of... Geoffrey's Norman and Angevin ancestors With the bene®t of hindsight, Gervase of Canterbury recorded that Geoffrey and Duchess Constance had submitted themselves and their lands to Philip Augustus, and that Henry II had done nothing to prevent it.80 Geoffrey's extension of the forti®cations of Nantes, and the attestations to ducal charters made there in 1186, were mentioned above in the context of Geoffrey... allied with Geoffrey against Henry II and Richard After at least one visit to Paris, in 1186 Geoffrey returned to Brittany and began making preparations for war with Henry II and Richard If he had not done so in the previous months, Geoffrey extended the forti®cations of the city of Nantes He assured himself of the loyalty of the barons of the southern and eastern frontiers of the county of Nantes, who . 5 DUKE GEOFFREY, HENRY II AND THE ANGEVIN EMPIRE The previous chapter demonstrated Duke Geoffrey's able performance as Henry II& apos;s lieutenant. RT, ii, p. 10±12; RH, ii, p. 273; Gesta, p. 291; RD, ii, p. 18. 16 Pipe Roll 29 Henry II, p. 56; EYC, iv, pp. 111±2. Duke Geoffrey, Henry II and the Angevin